Will low cost LED projectors displace LCD and plasmas?? - Page 6

A good one for under 1000$: http://www.projectorreviews.com/pana...100u/index.php
This one's good too, even cheaper: http://www.projectorreviews.com/view...8200/index.php

Okay, this is an example. You say this:


And then follow it up with this:


If pico projectors have carved out a new niche, then by definition they occupy a market that was previously unoccupied. But in your very next sentence, you talk about the convenience of pico projectors vs. flat panels in the niche market that, by definition, flat panels never occupied. If the two occupy separate markets, then the comparison is moot. It's like comparing the convenience of motorized scooters to motorcycles, or McDonald's to Ruth's Chris. Sure, you're talking about modes of transportation or food, but the markets for each simply fail to overlap, so the comparison is a pointless one. This is the confusing double position that I see you stating.


Again, within the context of this thread - none of the guys out here who have purchased LED projectors would have purchased a flat panel instead. And none of them plan on going home and displacing their flat panel with their LED projector. They're simply filling a new need that would have simply gone unfilled before. And being deployed out here is not a "normal" circumstance, in that I'm convinced it's specifically driving the purchase of these projectors - I know it's the only reason I did. If we had remained home, none of us would have bought one.

I still say it's not an awareness problem, and refer you back to my previous discussion on the limitations of front projection setups that make flat panels much better overall choices for casual viewing. Portable LED projectors do absolutely nothing to change the two (aforementioned) primary problems that have always plagued FP setups in the home - low light output and the need for a light-controlled environment to achieve watchable CRs. Yes, these new projectors are portable and LED light sources have good life spans, but neither of those things do anything to address the above problems. And that - not lack of awareness - is what is going to keep FP out of people's homes en masse.

I didn't mean to include that flat panels and pico projectors occupy the same niche. As you say, that wouldn't make any sense. Perhaps I should have said "Pico projectors have the advantage of convenience over flat panels in certain circumstances, giving them (the pico projectors) their niche."

I'll concede the point about awareness though, I think both you and rogo make good points. The rest of rogo's post is again responding to an argument I'm not making and even repeating things I said myself.

Apparently, I don't understand your argument. Let's just agree it's too sophisticated for me to grasp so there is no confusion about whether I think your argument is foolish or inferior. I'll just concede it's somehow superior and beyond my intellectual capabilities to understand it.

And with that, I'll exit this portion of the discussion.

I enjoyed your entriguing tagline, HogPilot;
the 11 types of opinions about it could be: positive, negative, or indifferent.
It is completely relevant to restate the topic of this thread:
"Will low cost LED projectors displace LCD and plasmas??"
I'd like to expand the question in an effort to clarify it.
'Will current technology (mid 2012), low-cost LED projectors displace current technology (2012) LCD and plasmas for the majority of consumers?"
Answer: No.
"Will current LED projectors displace flatscreens for certain (albeit, tiny percentage-wise) consumers as a choice to newly install?" - Yes.
I sold, to my brother, my perfectly-working 55" 1080P 120Hz flatscreen and replaced it in my living room with an LED projector at 120 inch image size, in a light-controlled room. Now, before someone posts something equivalent to, "well, most people wouldn't do that", I know this already! I personally do not care about being like most people ("most people" won't live to be healthy to an age of 100 - I do not wish to be like "most" people). If it is so paramount for you to feel normal and be like most people, then do that, whatever that means to you.
For LED projectors to significantly displace current LCD and plasma (hereafter referred to in this and subsequent posts as "flatscreens"), for the majority of consumers, practically speaking, LED projectors would have to output enough lumens, resolution, and CR (contrast ratio) to be usable in normal ambient light, because for now and the foreseeable future, the great majority of consumers are just not willing to setup a light-controlled room. Most people care more about convenient, casual viewing more than a cinema-size home experience and film-like quality. "Most" people want to have some lights on, and even have some sunlight shining in through windows in the room in the daytime! I respect the right of anyone to enjoy home viewing as they wish.
If it isn't clear from my previous posts though, I am personally am a fan of projectors because, currently, only projectors provide an image of the size I want to have as an alternative to my flatscreen. LED HD DLP projectors currently offer more film-like, natural colors, and image characteristics, and don't require replacement bulbs for the usable life of the unit.
I don't care what the technology is that accomplishes the results I want (which is a 120 inch image size with acceptable quality), it's just that currently, flatscreens fall "flat" in image size, while projectors don't. So many enlightened users in this forum (in my opinion, that is), are missing out by not at least considering an LED HD DLP projector, to enjoy enjoy the gigantic, truly cinema-at-home experience, that I currently am ecstatic about having.
Yeah, yeah, right: 100 inch and up flatscreens are currently a real factor in home cinema, even though they weigh a hundred plus pounds and are extremely difficult, if not impossible to even get into doorways of homes! (I post this quite sarcastically, BTW).
Airion, more power to you, sir! I am a fan of what you assert here in the forum on the amazing capabilities of projectors, and please keep pressing the point that projectors have enormous benefits, regardless of the "flatscreens snobs" who cling to their precious conventional technology (much like the comparatively short-sighted aficionados of CRTs, who held on far too long to the inherent benefits of that technology).
Rogo, please don't stop posting here in this thread. Slam me and other posters here in the forum as hard as you can; disagree, criticize, and comment on the viewpoints of all these posts as you wish, please. You have won me over with your intelligence, depth of understanding, and experience, and I would consider it a great loss not to know what you think. Conscientious human beings are stronger when we are pressed to examine and defend the true validity of our own values and viewpoints.
Quote:
"What doesn't kill us makes us stronger". - Friedrich Nietzsche

Thanks for expressing those kind words. (Incidentally, I have no interest in slamming anyone.)

See, I thought that was Kelly Clarkson.

Incidently, for my first HDTV I walked right past all the flat screens in the store to buy the single remaining HD CRT set in the store in 2006. I kept it until 2010, when I got my first projector and stopped using the TV. I do miss the blacks sometimes.

You bring back fond memories of when I had a 32 inch 4:3 format HD CRT from 2006 to 2009, when it just stopped working (the set displayed SD programs at 4:3, but would letterbox widescreen HD material at 16:9).
Yes, I was amazed also by the black levels and contrast range on CRTs and I enjoyed many hours of watching my 32 inch model, but that set was my last one because I realized that the screen size of CRTs is very limited. Similarly, I think that the size and weight of conventional LCDs and plasmas currently has a practical limit at some point, which is why I use a projector now.

OK, forum . . . out of curiosity, I have read through the range of previous postings of this thread, all the way back from the beginning of this thread starter's post, of Russell Burrows. Kudos to your truly visionary views, Mr. Burrows!
Enough already about "ratings", "specifications", and any other instrument measurements on such things as lumens and contrast ratio. For the record, (and for anyone who would quote ANY "specifications", such as measured by a light meter or some such other instrument) . . . . put me on the record as not giving a crap about any "ratings" or any other instrument measurements of a projector, flatscreen, or any electronic component. I use only my own senses to assess the qualitative aspects of anything I see, hear, or experience.
I have had previous philosophical issue disagreements with other users on this forum who seem to form an opinion based only on instrument measurements.
There has been NO light meter, NO instrument, NO contraption whatsoever yet constructed by humans that can match, let alone surpass, any one of the real-world perceptive capabilities of any one of us real human beings as regards the assessment of visual or auditory quality.
With this in full consideration, I was just in awe recently, in the enjoyment of viewing the Martin Scorsese masterpiece film, "Hugo" on blu-ray on my 120 inch home wide-screen, with my girlfriend. No technical specifications of lumens, nor of any other instrument-measurable aspect whatsoever, detracted from our shared enjoyment of this film; rather, it was the visual impact of the absolutely enormously enveloping scale of the 120 inch image that just emotionally engrossed and engaged us both into the film's action.
Airion, you have been promoting the benefits of the enormous image scale of projectors even before I discovered them, so I look forward to reading what you think.

IMHO If you are not used to seeing an expensive home cinema setup then the new LED projectors are fine for movie nights and watching sports and such as long as the room you have it setup in can have light control.

it does not have the color and clarity of the TV but if you are after big screen viewing then it is a cheap alternative.

I class it as a second tv not the main tv, before i bought my Acer K330 a friend of mine told me i would have to spend 5k and need a big room if i wanted a home cinema, well the other night she changed her mind after view a 110" screen in a room 12x10

I agree, shamrion, and what a great summary of just what these LED DLP projectors are best for. Sure, these LED DLP "clone" projectors aren't the equal of a home cinema costing many thousands of dollars, but they are quite impressive for the cost.
My setup is very similar; a 120" screen in a 12x12 room. I know what you mean also about seeing is believing. I have demonstrated my projection setup to four of my friends, and two of them bought an LED DLP unit (one bought an Acer K330, the other, an Optoma ML500). Both friends now enjoy a basic home theater in their basement room (certainly light-controlled there). Many people comment that the image looks brighter than expected based on the lumens. I believe in evaluations based much more on actual observations than on specifications.
I have read some fascinating information about scotopic compared to photopic lumens; that devices may measure lumens that human vision just doesn't perceive well, with LEDs producing a relatively higher perceived light level than measurements indicate.

I think it's hard to measure the impact of screen size on overall enjoyment. You can tell us a 120 inch screen looks great, but we won't really know what it's like to sit down and watch a movie on it until we do so for ourselves. On the other hand, tell me it's a 1080p image with a 4000:1 contrast ratio and 20 foot lamberts, and I have a very good idea of how it will look. Screen size, afterall, isn't a measure of image quality. And yet, it has a large impact on the quality of the viewing experience.

I mentioned that I went from an HD CRT, great image and great blacks, to a DLP projector. The CRT clearly wins on measures of image quality, and but subjectively the projector was a huge upgrade! While previously I considered blacks to be most important, I now consider screen size to be much more important.

I came to this forum to learn more about the art and science of visual/audio systems and to learn from others know and think, and I've just learned from Airion's description about how certain specifications can give a good indication of what an image is like (particularly foot lamberts). Without seeing/hearing a setup, measurements are the only way to get some idea of its characteristics.
I'd be more accurate to state that it's important to me to understand the specifications, but not to overly rely on them, and to make evaluations based on seeing and hearing whenever possible. Over the years, I've known so many people who made purchase decisions based almost exclusively on manufacturer's specs, which made it frustrating to try to help them when they asked for my input. Of course, many electronics, especially lower-priced items, seem to be engineered to test highly on specs measurements (to the neglect of actual quality), precisely because so many consumers buy on specs. I used to enjoy showing friends how a 50W NAD amplifier sounded better than some other brand 100W amplifiers, because the NAD was designed to sound great to the ears, whereas the other brand was designed to impress shoppers with a high rating number. I'd say that most users on the forums here are well aware that many manufacturers build products just to test high on the ratings.
Screen size has become greatly important to me also, and I will compromise somewhat on other aspects (brightness, contrast, etc) to get the image size I want. I have discovered that the image size affects me most, provided that the picture/sound is sufficiently enjoyable, which is a very subjective thing; highly depending on individual opinion.

I agree, the specs are just a starting point and a lot of subjective stuff and personal preference go into the final perceived quality. Some people don't even like large screens, for example. I mentioned foot lamberts, but some people in the projector forums will tell you 20 is too high, and the industry standard 14 is better. You'll even find threads about people using ND filters to dim their projectors to achieve better black levels. And I'm the opposite, one look at a high gain screen and I'm now more than happy to sacrifice black levels for a brighter image.

3D is another one that can make a big difference. Provided the Blu-ray has decent 3D, I much prefer to watching it on my lower contrast 720p 3D projector than my higher contrast 1080p 2D projector (brightness is about the same given my high gain screen and placement of the projectors). I have a similar choice with PC games, I can either play 1080p 2D or 720p 3D, and I find the 720p 3D image on the lesser projector, including motion tearing due to the active shutter glasses, to be far superior (although comparing 2D resolutions to 3D resolutions can be apples to oranges). Other people, meanwhile, get no pleasure from 3D at all.

Will low cost LED projectors displace LCD and plasmas??
In direct answer to the question that the topic of this forum poses, which is literally, "Will low cost LED projectors displace LCD and plasmas??', my answer is yes, for a certain few fans of cinema and technology, who are willing to set up a totally darkened home-theater room, then yes, even low cost LED HD DLP projectors justifiably replace any flatscreen (LCD or plasma) currently available (July 2012) .
I did actually displace (replaced) my perfectly functioning, 55 inch, 16:9, LCD, 1080P, 120Hz flatscreen to use instead, an LED HD DLP projector (an Acer K330) throwing a very naturally cinematic, 16:9 image onto a 120 inch widescreen.
By "replace", I mean that I unplugged all cables from my 55 inch flatscreen HDTV, took it out of the home theater room that it was in, and sold it to my brother for the same amount that my projector cost. Then, I put my projector, an LED HD DLP (the Acer K330, though other similar ones would suffice) at the back of the same room, and put a 120 inch, 16:9, 1.0 gain screen at the front of the room in place of the 55" inch flatscreen, with the same 5.1 Yamaha surround system that I had, and I couldn't be happier.
I just recently (July 2012) evaluated a new Sharp 90 inch, 1080p LCD HDTV, at a local retailer (BestBuy) and I still prefer my 120" inch image at home!

For a "real" cinema experience, a large screen with reduced ambient lighting will always be preferred, an unarguable fact.

So tell me, when was the last time you went to a theater with a small screen or skylights or patio doors or picture windows?

....and that's why a bigger screen in a darkened room will always be the unbiased choice.


Peace. Regards.

Teac4010, I couldn’t agree more, that the bigger screen in a darkened room will always be the artistic choice, and BTW, nice reference in your chosen name to a classic electronics brand that I owned in the 1970s . . . . . Teac. As far as I know, people are not paying money to go see “The Dark Knight Rises” in small rooms on an artificial-looking flatscreens, but rather, massive groups of movie-goers are paying to sit in a darkened theater to cinematically watch films on projectors!

Ronknox ? you would have to sell me on the Acer K330.

I have sat on the fence for a few months now waiting to see the prices of the new LED 1080P projectors .

Just have to wait and see the street price in the US of the Acer 750 Hybrid/Laser.

But, I might just pass on that one for the price alone unless I will the lottery.

So ? if I do decide to pick one of these clones, or the LG PA70G , which one ?

The Acer K330 ? The Viewsonic Pled 500 ? or the LG PA70G ?

Still haven't started to save money up yet , but I did get my car problem finally fixed.

Some are saying they can get the LGPA70G at or around the cost of some of these clone projectors, I guess as long as the sale price holds up.

What about the focus issue with these clones ?

Are you happy with the Acer K300 ? or the the Viewsonic the better one ?

I currently have the LG HX300, it's OK ? with movies so as long as it's light controlled.

Bought my mom a Plazma TV for mothers day, she's happy with it, but I agree with you, want big picture with the theater experience.

BTW ? my mom has a old HD-CRT SONY 40 inch TV , the thing weighs 300 lbs... I know I ain't going to carry that thing out the door when she get's rid of it..

I still have my 37 inch Zenith HDTV and it's still going strong since the day I bought it. old work horse.

" talks up" a $100,000 flatscreen that is a dream for most people "

I would have taken that $ 100,000 and bought a house to put my Home Theater in.

post still applicable a year later.

This thread was rediculous, a year ago it was rediculous. It gets more and more rediculous every day. The Sharp 90" LED will be less then $5k in a year, people can buy the 92" Mits Rear Projector today for $2500. It works in real rooms, very nice image and a Darbee Darblet for $269 gives it even more wow.

Things that are ridiculous:

1) This thread
2) The notion that any normal person will ever hear of a "Darbee Darblet" let alone buy one
3) Discussing RPTV like most people would even consider that (Mitsubishi worldwide sales are well under 0.1% of the global TV market)
4) Worrying about projector growth
5) Spelling ridiculous with an 'e'

That said... there simply remains not a snowball's chance in hell that low-cost projectors of any type will displace LCDs and plasmas.

I have a 47" LCD TV in my living room, but for the basement recently purchased an LED projector. The projector has become the primary display device in our house. The TV can't compete with the 100" projected image. I think a flat screen TV and a projector make a nice combo, and would recommend that rather than owning two TVs. Although if I had to choose between the two - I would go with the projector because all around my family is having more fun with it. And I love watching movies on the big screen. I think a 100" LCD/plasma TV would be in the thousands of dollars compared to the $550 spent on the projector.

And miss out on drywall panel developments?

The Image is more powerful than the Technology . . . .
Just as, "Ideas are more powerful than guns."
This is a truth, brought to my attention by a very experienced poster I sincerely respect.
I care more about the results, than the means, which in the context of this forum is to say that I care more about getting a satisfyingly large and high quality image more than loyalty to any specific technology (such as LCD, plasma, OLED, and whatever tech that will surely be forthcoming, whatever the name).
In 2019 (when "Replicants" are working off-world), maybe LCD, plasma, and even OLED will be like CRT is to us today: crude, heavy, and unnecessarily bulky. Perhaps any flatscreen, i.e. any rigid object larger than about 90 inches (16:9) will in the near future, be considered a "dinosaur" of technology to many people (though roll-up screens could alleviate this problem).
Imagine that in years to come, viewing images at home will go "Back to the Future", in that the future of home viewing will go back to that of the original cinema . . . images thrown from a relatively compact apparatus onto a gigantic wall-sized image area.
The future is in increasing the realism and size of the perceived image, not in bringing an ever-increasingly large object into homes. I live in my own rural home and can take out walls if I so desire, but so many people live in apartments, and that trend may continue, so how does that fare for the future of giant-sized flat-rigid objects (that is, flatscreens)?
I agree with indio22: use both flatscreen AND projectors now. Flatscreens for bright rooms, and projectors for that unmatched cinema-scale big image experience in light-controlled rooms. DLPProjectorfan, stay true to that love of truly large cinema images that I sense from you. Because you use an LG HX300, then you know how immersive and satisfying a projected image can be in a light-controlled environment. In my opinion, you would notice a worthwhile increment of improvement going from the LG HX300's, 4:3, 1024x768, 300 lumens to an Acer K330's 16:10 widescreen, 500 lumens, ~720P format (yeah, I know . . those are the rated specs, but used for relative comparison). The native widescreen alone would account for much.
I once had an LG HS-201 LED DLP projector, (which is 4:3, 600x800, NOT native widescreen) and the LG HS-201, though fine in build quality, was short of home cinema level to me, particularly because it was not widescreen. Keep using your HX300 if you're undecided, rather than spending big on a large flatscreen.
Yes, I'm very happy with my Acer K330 for what I paid though ($499 from TigerDirect, on sale). I have watched many hours on it, and love the experience. I am however, very intrigued by the Casio XJ-M240 LED/Laser hybrid projector, which is 1280X800 widescreen. The Casio XJ-M240 is about $1050 to $1100 online, so if you upgrade from your HX300, I would get either an Acer K330 (~$500), an LG PA70G (a small notch better than Acer K330), or better still, a Casio XJ-M240. I use a Casio XJ-M150 at work and it amazes me so far, plus there are no bulbs to replace. The Casio XJ-M150 is not widescreen though (it's XGA 1024X768), but it's the same tech as the XJ-M240 (the XJ-M150 was purchased for by the business wing, so I had no choice). Get a native widescreen projector though, by all means.

Yes, to flat-screen-only fans, projectors are a threat, just as transistors were to tube technology; transistors were (and are) so much smaller, more efficient, reliable and affordable than vacuum tubes. Current flatscreen technology cannot grow much larger without some logistic limits; projectors can.
l'll make one more movie reference (1986's "The Fly"); to current flatscreen technology fans, regarding projector technology overcoming flatscreens: - Be afraid . . . BE VERY AFRAID !

In a way, this thread IS one of the most ridiculous one of all those on the AVSForum, because after all, how could a low-cost projector be more desirable than a flatscreen which is admittedly, much brighter and has more contrast?
Well for cinema, a truly large image size that is acceptable in quality (and such a relative term that is) can for some people, be more enjoyable than a much smaller screen size; whatever the advantages in brightness and contrast the smaller screen size may have.
I watch HDTV programming primarily on my Samsung 52" 1080P 120Hz flatscreen, but when I want, literally, to feel goosebumps from experiencing a giant-sized image that engulfs me in the action, then I go into the theater room and watch my LED DLP projector on a 120" widescreen, along with a nice surround system.
I don't worry at all about projector growth, but rather marvel that better and better projectors continue to be designed and released (e.g. the Acer K750, ViewSonic Pro 9000, Panasonic PT-RZ470, et al). I believe that the statistically average consumer (the"normal" person) will buy whatever the most affordable display is available at their local retailer, then take that 32', 40", 47", or 55" (or whatever the measure) screen home and think little more of the experience of what they are viewing; that is until the TV stops working, and then it's necessary to buy another "television set".
"Projector people" are a quite a different type it seems; "projector people" are those individuals who are willing to set up an environment specifically to view content, who seem to want a richer experience, as opposed to just putting a "television" wherever the other furniture isn't taking up space, and just be done with it. To a cinema fan, the image display should take stage front and center as a priority over all else in the room.
I have seen many rooms wherein people put a display screen over in a corner, out of the way of other (supposedly) "more important" stuff, so that people in the provided seating would have to turn their heads to watch it because the bookshelf (or some other static object in the room) somehow needed to be the center of focus - presumably according to tradition or a style decor as to how a room "should" be arranged.
Projectors are the "David" to the "Goliath" of flatscreen displays. Projectors go to sizes where flatscreens fear to tread! The Image is more powerful than the technology.

At the rate at which projectors are displacing flat panels from the market, Russell, projectors will displace flat panels precisely the day after never. In fact, if anything, flat panels are replacing projectors.

In response to Russell Burrows post and quote, well . . . I have to laugh at myself for writing in such a way that my last post seems to mean something the opposite of what I intend to mean. I have known about the importance of not using sarcasm online because it seems so literal. I shouldn't have written the post that way, and I sure realize now, the importance of writing in direct language.
My first sentence of the post was,
-"In a way, this thread IS one of the most ridiculous one of all those on the AVSForum, because after all, how could a low-cost projector be more desirable than a flatscreen which is admittedly, much brighter and has more contrast?"
I wrote as complete sarcasm (which I'm admitting now was a mistake on my part), rather, I intended that first sentence sarcastically in the same sense as stating this - "How could a smartphone have more processing power and memory than an expensive computer did ten years ago?"
Progress that's how!

This is actually the most interesting thread I've seen so far because it evokes the discussion that a projector can produce an image so much larger and more engaging than a flatscreen - and I thank you for starting this thread!
A bigger screen size gets my vote as well; I've put up various previous posts on this and other threads, stating my definite preference for large projected images. I watch primetime shows and blu-ray, and DVDs on my 120" projected image living room screen.
I watch the 52" in the bedroom - it's fine for falling asleep while watching late night shows after a long day; many are the nights I've laughed at the sharp wit of Craig Ferguson, just before dozing off!
I agree that some HDTV flatscreens have a place, such as to catch the morning news while having breakfast in a kitchen with lots light and windows, but for me, I prefer the cinema experience of very large images for entertainment.
I also wrote that "projector people" seem to want a richer experience; again, I used weak, unclear sarcasm.

You seemed to have used a bit of sarcasm with the lines,
"CD will never replace cassettes, DVD will never replace VCRs, Blu ray will never replace DVD, sound familiar?? HDTVs will never replace CRTs since they cost too much............yep! no HDTVs for under 200 dollars this Black Friday."
- only you did it clearly, successfully, whereas I didn't.
I think that I got clearer about my intended direct meaning, at the end of that post with this statement,
-"Projectors are the "David" to the "Goliath" of flatscreen displays. Projectors go to (image) sizes where flatscreens fear to tread! The Image is more powerful than the technology." - meaning that projectors win.
It's more important to get a truly large image (for example, 100', 120", 140" or larger size) than dwelling on whatever device or technology accomplishes that. Friends of mine now own and enjoy their own projectors after seeing mine.

None of the larger ( >50") flatscreens appeal to me now, because a projector does the job better for me. Yes indeed, technology truly does continue to improve, which calls for much discussion!